September 23, 2003
Putting the Taliban Back in Power
Perhaps it’s a precursor to what’s to come in Iraq, or it could be just a bad plan exposed, but reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan now include a concerted effort to recruit former “low level” Taliban leadership. To some this may reek of hipocracy and reverse nation-building (a.k.a. terrorism building), but the truth may be that that Afghanistan is an incredibly difficult country to occupy and run, and the U.S. has had to seek assistance from the former leadership: “US intelligence clearly realized this situation, and since the beginning of the year it has attempted to reach a compromise with the Taliban, on the proviso that they (the US) do not lose face.”
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 10:56 AMWhy is the Taliban still in existence? The President vowed to take them out. He has ignored Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban for the most part while he pursues his obsession with Iraq. It simply makes no sense.
Pakistan is an ally, why are Pakistan and the US not throwing everything we have at taking out those responsible for supporting, carrying out and hiding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Why is Bush not living up to his promise to the American people following 9/11?
Why are the American people so accepting and complacent about the mightiest nation on earth failing it’s objectives and fulfilling it’s promises to its own people and the world?
I guess beer and football, making a buck, and hangin’ out is just more important. Ancient Greeks felt the same way as the invasion began. That is why their greatness is ancient and historical rather than current and living, I suspect.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2003 06:52 PMThe reason the Taliban still exist is because they are still popular amongst the western Pakistani people. Furthermore, Pakistan’s president is hanging on by a thread politically (given the Islamicists’ numerous assassination attempts), any attempt to push Pakistan hard enough to eradicate them there would only topple the current US-friendly gov’t and have a hard-line Islamic gov’t take its place. So they’re tolerated at the moment since removing them is worse than letting them remain.
Posted by: Chris at September 24, 2003 08:17 AMThis is the same problem that any change of government runs into. The day to day tasks of government need to go on, and the people who are qualified to do it are the people who were doing it before. The same thing happend in postwar germany and in the former soviet bloc. You have to do some degree of purging, especially at the top level, but you can’t just instantly pull an entire government out of your ass.
Posted by: PK at September 24, 2003 10:12 AMYou guys are missing my point… two years ago you were either with us or against us. Now it’s a collective memory loss and we’re becoming buddies with the folks who harbored terrorists.
I hope at least someone from the right can share my indignation at this hipocracy.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 24, 2003 10:58 AMWell, strategery was never one of our Commander in Chief’s most developed attributes. I would have to agree with Remer’s comments. Are we mice, or are we men!?
The angry the world over are after us. They are even here in our country. Soon they will be us and we will be them. And we’ll all be angry at the rich Americans!
Posted by: genius of the bottle at September 24, 2003 05:28 PMStephen, I sympathize. I’m not too fond of bringing any of the Taliban back. However, I’m less fond of us going into Pakistan to properly root them out and toppling the Pakistani gov’t in the process. Do you have any other alternatives?
Posted by: Chris at September 24, 2003 08:55 PMChris: we’re going to have to deal with Pakistan eventually, either the Kashmir problem or Al Qaeda redux. They actually have nuclear weapons too.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 24, 2003 09:19 PM
